Minneapolis-based Target Corp. has now offered its local Muslim cashiers who object to handling pork the option of wearing gloves while cashiering

...And exactly what difference does that make? Even without gloves they wouldn't be touching the pork directly, considering it would be in packaging of some sort. Or is even the packaging of pork products haram now?

Posted by: staff_of_magius at March 19, 2007 12:28 AM

If it wasn't pork then they'd find something else. Next they won't ring up dog food. Or anything that contains pork.

Hey, MoFoes.. your story has become tiresome.. NEXT!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 19, 2007 12:43 AM

Let me pay off my Target Card and then cancel it with an explanation WHY I am cancelling.

WHY are our nice successful Western Societies lowering ourselves to accomodate these BEASTS??!!

ARE WE TRULY SO DELUDED THAT WE THINK WE CAN AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO PLAY THESE GAMES??

We should isolate islam from the Rest of the World so we can live in Peace!

If they have to reply only upon themselves for sustenance and material support I predict mass starvation and lots of kife fights - once the ammo runs out. Without anyone selling them stuff they'll have to give up on anything more advanced than swords and knives.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 19, 2007 12:48 AM

What's next -- refusing to help infidels?

Posted by: champ at March 19, 2007 1:07 AM

This is so bullshit.

As a Hindu, I am not supposed to eat beef, however, if it is a part of my job to handle beef (butcher, meat industry etc etc) and serve customers beef in a restaurant (waiter, chef etc) then I am excused from any sin that could be incured by my actions (according to the Bhagavad Gita) because I have to do this for my profession, thats Hinduism being practical.

So if they have such a problem then why do they come here, why not stay in their stupid narrow minded countries?

Posted by: Gorkhali at March 19, 2007 2:24 AM

Why would Target feel that it had to make any concessions at all? The pork products were on the shelves before the Muslims decided to apply for the job and before they accepted the position once it was offered to them. What if I hired at a store where halal meat was sold and, then, after accepting the job, I told the management that I would not stock or check out the meat because, as as member of PETA, I did not to support the sale of meat obtained in such a cruel way? My dismissal would be immediate, I am sure.

Posted by: maryrose at March 19, 2007 2:56 AM

Just say no

Posted by: savitch at March 19, 2007 3:13 AM

The answer is simple.

Boycott muslim owned, operated and staffed stores.

Boycott all goods and services provided by muslims and islamic countries.

Stop funding people who hate us.

http://notoislam.blogspot.com/

Posted by: No To Islam! at March 19, 2007 6:56 AM

maryrose said , "I told the management that I would not stock or check out the meat because, as as member of PETA, I did not to support the sale of meat obtained in such a cruel way?
Maryrose, in strict muslim countries, your comment would be considered anti islam or anti muslims and you would be beaten up by fellow employess and than thrown in jail for insulting muslims or islam.

Posted by: desidude at March 19, 2007 8:29 AM

muslim = ubervictim

and perfect

"i-am-not-responsible-for-any-of-my-actions-everything-offends-me" specimen

for the idiot-left's "victimhood industry"

the muslim feeds the cultural marxists' psychotic need to defend every form of idiocy - even to suicidal ends - while the left feeds constant affirmation to the muslim of its perpetual-state of self-induced victimhood

Posted by: TINBH at March 19, 2007 9:08 AM

No option need be given. Cashiers who refuse to ring up all items in the store should be -- cashiered.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 9:11 AM

Moving the Time-Bomb to another part of the building still leaves you with a bomb. Sooner or later it is going to go off.

“There is also no indication that this is an issue in the Minnesota market overall or nationwide.”

Target, and other stores, are only delaying bigger problems than just "pork" in the future.

Posted by: Monkeywho at March 19, 2007 9:26 AM

The pork products were on the shelves before the Muslims decided to apply for the job and before they accepted the position once it was offered to them.

This is a great observation and one of the central points. I can't think of any reason why this muslim would accept the job knowing the expectations of it except maybe to start another "controversy" and get a nice settlement via CAIR....

I bet this is only the begining. First taxi's, now supermarkets, whats to follow....

Posted by: adobe at March 19, 2007 10:14 AM

Will Muslims receive special permission in American society to discriminate against certain people?
NO This goes against US trends in social tradition and jurisprudence. No way.

Or will there be a searching reevaluation of what we stand for as a society, and a concomitant reevaluation of immigration policies and much more? It's going to happen sooner or later.

I hope that I am directly involved in an incident like the Target checkout refusals or I'm on a plane with six MoFoe imams at some point.
I'll do everything I can to nail their asses to the wall.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 19, 2007 10:32 AM

Since I live in MN, I feel even angrier about this story than most of the readers. What is so wrong about this is that it is not only religious BS but it is so against the grain of how Minnesotans act.

There is a phrase called "Minnesota nice" that can simply mean false friendliness, but it also encompasses the idea that we all do get along. (Just think of one of Garrison Keillor's stories, they may be an exaggeration but they do sum up MN very well.) The idea that a store clerk would in any way challenge the morality of a customer's purchase is beyond belief.

Posted by: Jerry M at March 19, 2007 10:38 AM

Minneapolis-based Target Corp. has now offered its local Muslim cashiers who object to handling pork the option of wearing gloves while cashiering, shifting to other positions or transferring to other nearby stores.

What's next? Pork-free Target stores? Halal Target vs. Infidel Target? The accommodation of islam in the free world is bordering on the insane. If muslims can't function in the free world, they should return to their islamic paradise.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 19, 2007 11:00 AM

Yeah, the Caliphate of Minnesota's motto of "Minnesota Nice" is working real well-it's made the state a magnet for the peaceful ones because they get lots of tolerance (and taxpayer funded goodies too). They get so much of it that now they think they're still in the ummah and can act as they please regarding relations with infidels, whether it's at Target, driving cabs or acting like idiots at the airport. At this rate the state can change its motto to "Dhimmitude Forever"!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 19, 2007 11:05 AM

I wonder if there are also Target stores that don’t sell Qur’anic books to accommodate non-Muslims who object to selling hate literature?

http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/sr=8-2/qid=1174320450/ref=sr_8_2/601-1845252-6376161?ie=UTF8&asin=1904510000

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 19, 2007 12:10 PM

Hey Everyone,

I am a lawyer in Minnesota and I can assure you that Target's decision to shift the workers is the only one it could reach. Someone has been advising their Muslim cashiers to make an issue of pork handling just like the local cabbies did about transporting passengers from the airport carrying alcohol. (It's interesting that the cabbies lost a few weeks, perhaps days, before the cashier issue reared its ugly head. To me this is not coincidence and I am convinced that the local Muslim activists in concert with CAIR have chosen this sequence, and have probably already planned their next move.)

If Target had not offered other positions it would have been arguably violating its employees rights under Minnesota's Human Rights Act and left itself legally vulnerable. The Muslim activist strategy has moved from the cabs which they lost, to this one. Their move would have shifted the decision-maker from the Metro Airports Commission to the Muslims choice between the Minnesota Human Rights Department and/or the local Federal Court. My guess is that their choice would have been the MHRD which is softer than the courts on discrimination claims.

Target made a correct decision for itself by deflecting this naked attempt to create a legal precedent in favor of fake Muslim sensibilities. It is also a fortunate decision for the long legal war we are now beginning. We all need to remember that we can choose our battles with them, and not take their bait whenever they choose to hang it in front of us. The cabbie case was stupidly chosen by them; the Target cashier case was less obviously a loser for them, and is not the best legal scenario for us to fight them. Avoiding litigation prevents this battle, which is good for the long war ahead.

Posted by: bobnoxious at March 19, 2007 12:34 PM

This is a good solution in that it deals with Target's current Muslim problem while effectively putting Muslims on notice that scanning pork is part of a cashiers job.If Muslims cannot scan pork then they are not eligible to work as cashiers though they are eligible for other jobs at Target.Muslims are now being told that upfront when they apply for jobs at Target.

Traditionally in the US when a persons "religion" has conflicted with their job they've had to make the choice of dealing with their conscience or choosing other employment. Rather then making that choice Muslim want to impose their religion on non-Muslims which cannot be allowed in a free society. Muslims are also effectively cutting themselves off from a number of jobs at Target and other retailers. Given Muslims "sensitivity" now only infidels are eligible for cashiers jobs at Target as well as all other jobs at Target.While Muslims have voluntarily restricted themselves to only a few job categories. Leading to more jobs and opportunities for non-Muslims and fewer jobs for Muslims.As Muslims will be competing in the few categories they are eligible for with infidels. Infidel employees who are hardworking, non-discriminatory and put customer service first.Which group of employees will employers prefer to hire? Welfare is also not the answer for these "sensitive" Muslims. As welfare has changed in the US. There is a time limit on benefits and able bodied welfare recipients are required to work for their benefits.

Posted by: Roxane at March 19, 2007 1:30 PM

Aren't there many products on supermarket shelves and pharmacy shelves that contain alcohol?

Doesn't hydrogen peroxide contain alcohol?

How can a mudlim touch hydrogen peroxide (which is also used to create explosions)?

Mudlims can't work in supermarkets, department stores, transportation, pharmacies, health care.

The list will grow. We just need to educate them.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 19, 2007 2:23 PM

Kashrut (the laws of kosher) do not allow me to eat pork, but there is no prohibition of handling pork or handling in the name of others.

Robert, do you know with Sura tells a muslim explicitly that he cannot handle that which he cannot eat.

I have started to read the Koran, but it is so vile and horribly written, it is taking me some time to sort through it.... :)

Posted by: bonncaruso at March 19, 2007 3:23 PM

Even Robert will have a hard time finding a specific Surah that prohibits handling anything related to port. There are way too many inconsistencies in the Qu'ran as well as in the Hadiths. I've tried reading those cursed books but it's frustrating. No wonder the Musalmans are crazy.

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 19, 2007 4:27 PM

"Greear said it was a localized problem and that it would be handled on a case-by-case basis". Any rational person would do just that, by sacking the individual cashier concerned.

The idiots at Target no doubt think that their actions will make the problem go away. It won't, it never does with these lunatics. If Muslims refuse to handle pork despite wearing gloves and the meat being wrapped in plastic, they will just move on to other things: pork sausages in plastic boxes, pork luncheon meat in tins, dog fod in tins, alcohol in bottles, medicinal creams containing alcohol, music CDs, etc, etc, and anything else this vile cult considers is not permitted. Most of the items I have quoted have already been mentioned in news items. In a supermarket Muslims have an almost limitless supply of items to get offended by. And as soon as they score one victory (and sense weakness) they will just start on the next campaign.

Posted by: Paul at March 19, 2007 4:52 PM

Dhimmitude: One Inch at a Time

bonncaruso

Mein Koran is indeed a horribly stupid book for retards. There's a single sura that tells the mudlim that alcohol and gaming are forbidden. That's it!

A mudlim can sell or transport forbidden food and drink.

But, the Wahabi Dictatorship in Jihadi Arabia wants to turn USA into a Sharia State.

These little games the mudlims are playing are just to move us a little closer to Dhimmitude.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 19, 2007 5:10 PM

Seems to me that if a Muslim is frightened by the mere proximity of pig flesh, he should not be working in an establishment which offers pig flesh for sale. These guys want to go just far enough and no farther. They can hold their noses and work at Target, but Target has to give them special consideration, giving them positions where the proximity of pig flesh is minimized.

It's hard to say what Target should have done without knowing the specific relevant legislation in the state in question, but in principle this is certainly ridiculous.

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 19, 2007 5:12 PM

Hey Paul,

Take a look at my earlier post. I have handled numerous employment discrimination cases over the years. Target made a logical choice that preserves its rights and gives the Muslim troublemakers nothing. Had Target said check pork or leave, they all would have sued and, trust me, the possibility of a bad result was considerably greater than the airport cab case. The law is built on precedents, so a smart litigant only chooses to fight when ending the conflict is untenable, and the outcome of a lawsuit is nearly certain.

This is not a victory for Muslims. In fact, it shows them that they are up against a society and a legal system that is far more complex than their ability to comprehend or manipulate it. The only people disappointed by Target's decision are those who were spoiling for a fight, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

We win evertime the Muslims don't get what they want. Here, they wanted a fight, followed by a lawsuit and bad publicity for those who fought them; they got nothing. They wanted separate rules for Muslims, and instead got themselves excluded from being cashiers in grocery stores.

And, maybe best of all, everytime they fail to make an issue and win, the crediblity of their issue-raising shrinks.

Posted by: bobnoxious at March 19, 2007 5:18 PM

I agree with bobnoxious, the muslims plan is perform the slow non violent jihad to use our legal system to get what they want. they know how to play the race and discrimination card. They know that when any business is charged with discrimination the a ACLU, CAIR, Jessie Jackson will back them up. A business like target can't afford to have thier name dragged through the mud, they have too much competition. They had to settle this quickly.

Posted by: desidude at March 19, 2007 5:48 PM

The Muslim community would never get this emboldened if there weren't US politicians selling us out. We all know this to be the case. Doing something about it is another matter altogether however.

What is sorely needed are more websites teaching Americans how to fight back politically against Islamic infiltration and imperialism, and, leftist politicians and other weasels that routinely sell us out to them.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 19, 2007 6:39 PM

Why now?
Where did this issue come from; why now? Are these the very first Muslim cashiers in the U.S. who've had to deal with pork products? And how long have these complainers been cashiering at Target? Didn't they know about needing to scan pork products when they took the cashier job? Did they expect to be allowed to put up a sign reading "No pork allowed in this line; go to the next cashier": something like with the taxi drivers at the MSP Airport?

Defy; dont' submit!
Anyway, we should not indulge contemptible irrational superstitions. The only proper stance is defiance. If we don't, we'll get a culture dominated by superstitious rubish. Respect for pathetic nonsense is wrong wrong wrong; don't indulge it! Muslim discomfort about pork is all their own fault, not ours.

Posted by: MelM at March 19, 2007 7:27 PM

rather like the 3 little piggies situation, the logic of this could run and run, and Paul has started a good list above.
what about non-halal meat in general ? and what about contraceptive pills ? a Muslim pharmacist might refuse to sell them to a Muslim woman unless she can prove that she is:
a) married to a Muslim, and
b) that she is buying with his approval.
similarly, an Muslim airline ticket agent might refuse to sell tickes to a Muslim woman unless she can prove that she is travelling with the permission of a male relative ?
and so on and so on.
interesting to read comments by legal eagle bobnoxious, i do hope that he will be proved right !

Posted by: M Al-Content at March 19, 2007 7:38 PM

bobnoxious,

You make a good argument but, still, I would have fired them. This chain sells pork and not just wrapped pork. Probably pork skins? Pork and beans? How about Spam or potted meat? I would bet there is pork all over that store and if these employees can’t handle pork how can they work there? They can’t check, or sack, or stock, or god forbid, clean up some unclean “juice” from a torn package? That means they are all outside collecting carts. No, wait, can’t do that either, those carts have had pork in them. I submit to you that they are useless in this environment. Fire them.

Precedents need to be set, yes, let’s set right ones.

Posted by: butterfly at March 19, 2007 9:29 PM

Misfits in action.

I stopped doing any shopping at Target a few years ago when they banned the Salvation Army during Christmas. Haven't been in one of their stores since.

If they closed tomorrow, my day would go forward, unchanged.

Posted by: DCWatson at March 19, 2007 10:15 PM

This is ridiculous. I understand your points bobnoxious, but we have to look at the bigger picture. What Target is doing is starting off a double society, one for citizens and one for non-citizens. This will further Lebanize (Lebanon-ize) the Twin-Cities.

Secondly, your legal explanation of Target’s actions has been noted, but I’m more convinced by the probability that they acted to protect the bottom line. After all, we know that there is a large concentration of non-citizens in that area. Also, let’s not forget from where the first non-citizen elected to Congress came from.

What I would like to happen is for all the other cashiers to form a protest rally against Target for participating in discrimination against them; that is, handing a certain group of people special privileges. After all, a religion can be anything, and if you are willing to grant someone something his/her religion demands, I want the same treatment. Maybe my religion demands the employer pay for my lunch, work is to be done sitting, and I get a half-hour break every other hour. Maybe I don’t even have a religion, and I don’t want to touch groceries, not even come near me. Why should a non-citizen get special treatment?

And what happened to assimilation? Would the court decide against that?
And what happened to evil ideology radicalism? Would the court decide for that?
And what happened to free-marketplace? Would the court decide against that?

Frankly, this stinks of bad business and bad patriotism on the part of Target.

Posted by: ofcourse at March 19, 2007 11:10 PM

I think it would be fair to ask Muslims: "Just what harmful contaminants (mercury or ...?) are in pork? Is it any worse than fish, chicken, beef, or lamb?" Maybe the FDA could settle this question and Muslims could enjoy a nice ham and egg breakfast.

Posted by: MelM at March 20, 2007 12:08 AM

Bobnoxious, have you written any articles on the west's difficulties maintaining its high standards while battling the islamist threat? The way they are using our freedoms and rights against us?

This is precisely what I want to understand bette. It's no doubt satisfying to write 'out with all muslims' (as some here do), but it will never happen. So we need to find ways to protect our values even while muslim numbers in the west may keep growing. Sigh...

Posted by: Lili at March 20, 2007 12:51 AM

I have printed out 10 to aa A4 page notices explaining what Halal meat is. I put them on the windscreens of cars in car parks, outside churches etc. There wouldn't be one person in my town who doesn't know what halal meat is. The reason for all this? A Muslim family has come to town and opened a Kabab Shop in the new shopping centre. He's not doing too well. Next I am going to quote sura vs. bible verse.

Posted by: shinagirl at March 20, 2007 4:58 AM

I live and work in a muslim country for over ten years now. It gives me the creeps when a checkout operator puts a plastic bag on her hand to handle some tinned or vacum packed pork products or calls a non muslim person to handle the items. It makes me feel dirty and humiliated

expat

Posted by: hemoglobin at March 20, 2007 5:55 AM

Just curious, Jews also do not eat pork, are Jewish workers given special consideration? Are Hindus excused from handling beef? Are Baptists excused from handling liquer? If not this is a civil rights violation and the stores should be sued. Public workers are just that, public workers, for all the public. Don't like it, get another job!

Posted by: eneri at March 20, 2007 8:19 AM

As I’ve posted elsewhere in JW/DW over the last few days, there’s more to the story than posted here:

1) By moving from cashier (an entry-level position), the reluctant Moslimas are in effect being promoted when they move to the sales floor.

2) The Moslimas weren’t so reluctant over the past 20 yrs, what changed? Probably the same Moslem Brotherhood front group that organized the Halal Hacks moved in and mobilized the Moslima checkout personnel.

3) Local Moslem leaders — all men, of course — object to the de facto promotions, complaining that to show its respect for Islam, Target make its checkout methods Sharia-compliant across the board. The lead Moslem Male quoted in the article was a Professor of Islamic Studies at the U. of Minnesota main campus in Mpls-St Paul. He said on TV that the Sharia changes should be nationwide.

Islamic Studies?!

4) Target Stores has left it to its store managers to figure out what to do. Target’s flagship store, adjacent to the company’s downtown Minneapolis corporate headquarters, has decided to go non-Sharia during its 11:30 – 1:30 rush hour, and then go Sharia during the balance of its open hours.

In other words, a Sharia arrangement by which the Moslimas may during the off hours decline to handle the pork, and ask the customer to ring up the product, and if the customer refuses, then call for a manager, in so doing slowing the checkout line for others.

Minnesotans are split about the new Sharia arrangement: some are for it, others against it. The politicians and media are by and large for the Sharia. No politician I’m aware of has spoken out against Sharia.

No local conservative radio talk show has uttered the word Sharia from what I am told; I personally am unable to listen to a lotta radio but have asked others who can, and it appears that the talk show hosts are unaware of "Little Jihad" process that is being rolled here.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 21, 2007 12:11 PM

A final point: I think most of our citizens underestimate the power of our court system to deal with challenges to our government. For example, whether you like the outcome or not, the legal basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida's election laws, handing the 2000 election to Bush, shows the ultimate role the Courts have in deciding critical legal rights. Remember, if a case challenges the accepted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the courts have the unchecked power to end that challenge.

I can guarantee all of you that political correctness carries no weight with most judges. While they are capable of biased judgments occasionally, if one of them screws up, the appeal process gives the higher court the power to fix it. Our Supreme Court has been increasingly heavily tilted toward government power in the arena of personal rights. Look at the NJ eminent domain case from two years ago and notice that both liberal and conservative judges are more than ready to use their power to empower the elected government for the general good over individual rights. The recent additions of Roberts and Alito will only strengthen the side that will favor government power over individual rights, or phony Muslim rights that undermine national security.

And also remember that, despite all our cynical feelings about national politics, the will of the people will ultimately win out. Dhimmi politicians will ultimately be defeated as the electorate's view of the fundamentalist Islamic threat becomes clearer.

The only thing we have to fear from these people is violent death and destruction, not the death and destruction of our Constitution, government, or our Court system. As I have noted at other websites, now that the flying Imams have threatened witnesses with becoming defendants, the lawyers lining up to defend them for free, including me, is getting long very quickly. Their attempt to win by intimidation will not work in the courts for numerous reasons. Watch what happens.

Posted by: bobnoxious at March 21, 2007 5:46 PM

The truth is that the seeds are being planted for an big, angry backlash in America against what I call sharia creep.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 21, 2007 8:04 PM